IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [codec] requirements #12 (closed): bit-exact vs. bit-compatible?

"codec issue tracker" <trac@tools.ietf.org> Tue, 25 January 2011 00:42 UTC

Return-Path: <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F10DB3A6B3E for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:42:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.589
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g3jYkXQ0IqIY for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:42:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508B93A6B05 for <codec@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:42:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <trac@tools.ietf.org>) id 1PhX1z-0002dT-M9; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:45:11 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: codec issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.11.7
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.7, by Edgewall Software
To: gmaxwell@juniper.net
X-Trac-Project: codec
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:45:11 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/codec/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/12#comment:1
Message-ID: <071.de3a02a9da3e01eafb66a41ba319b0e6@tools.ietf.org>
References: <062.8c126c3a81785b4856060d1e2a0914c8@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 12
In-Reply-To: <062.8c126c3a81785b4856060d1e2a0914c8@tools.ietf.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: gmaxwell@juniper.net, codec@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac@tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: codec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] requirements #12 (closed): bit-exact vs. bit-compatible?
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Reply-To: codec@ietf.org
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:42:16 -0000

#12: bit-exact vs. bit-compatible?

Changes (by gmaxwell@…):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => worksforme


Comment:

 http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/minutes/codec.txt

 "On the topic of bit exact. Consensus was bit exactness is not required."

 I believe this issue is already closed.

-- 
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  hoene@…                 |        Owner:            
     Type:  enhancement             |       Status:  closed    
 Priority:  minor                   |    Milestone:            
Component:  requirements            |      Version:            
 Severity:  Active WG Document      |   Resolution:  worksforme
 Keywords:                          |  
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/trac/ticket/12#comment:1>
codec <http://tools.ietf.org/codec/>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email